Hear, hear.

Usually, the Minister of State gets to address the Members at the end of the debate on what we have said but because of the way tonight’s debate ran, we have heard his contribution first. He lauded the establishment of this agrifood regulator and he talked about real powers. He did not say what it will have power to do, if anything, he just spoke about real power. It reminded me a little of a time in Irish politics when there was a party which had been in government for a long time and had taken a bit of a hammerin…

I heard the Minister's response with regard to the various incentives to bring derelict sites back into use. I have one question. There are many properties around the State where the upper floor is vacant and the ground floor is neither vacant nor derelict, nor has it been vacant or derelict at any point. It has been in consistent use as a commercial unit, but the upper floor has not been used for generations. Every market town in the country is full of such properties. Do those properties which are partly vacant, …

The Tánaiste mentioned that a new food regulator is going to come in and bring transparency. Undoubtedly, large profits are being made in the food chain but we do not really know where until we know what prices retailers are paying to processors, be it in the dairy sector or the beef sector in particular. They are blaming each other and saying "That is where the profits are being made". I put forward an amendment to allow the regulator get information on that as there is no such information available in the public …

Does the Tánaiste believe that somebody, be it the regulator or some other State agency, should be able to determine the minimum cost of production of food items in Ireland?

I am asking if some State agency, be it the regulator or someone else, should be able to determine the minimum cost of production in Ireland?

Yes it has.

Perhaps it is not a bad time to set up a farmers' party, but that is not the point.

Will the Tánaiste outline the European Council meetings at which Ireland agreed to participate in and fund the European Peace Facility and the EU military assistance mission in support of Ukraine?

Those agreements are, of course, not necessitated by membership of the European Union because we have an opt-out, but that does not mean we cannot opt in, in the same way that we opted out of the temporary protection directive and then subsequently opted in, with the approval of the Dáil. In reply to a previous parliamentary question, the Tánaiste told me it is anticipated we will spend €121 million towards the peace facility and the military assistance mission, of which €9.9 million was spent by the end of 2022. M…

Gabh mo leithscéal.

I accept the Minister's bona fides and that he genuinely believes that it is morally and strategically imperative for us to participate. I accepted that at the outset and that is not what I am questioning. What I am questioning is our own constitutional requirement that any international agreement that imposes a charge on public funds be approved by the Dáil, as well as any participation in war. I noticed that the Minister used the word "war" repeatedly throughout his response in terms of Russia's unjustified war i…

I accept that.

I agree that is wrong and indefensible.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 8, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “ “livestock producer” means any person engaged in the business of selling livestock to a meat processing plant for slaughter (including the sale of livestock from a meat processor to another meat processor);”. I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Government Chief Whip for facilitating a fuller debate on this Bill than might otherwise have been possible. I do not expect that we will agree on everything. We might not agree on anythin…

Amendment No. 2 provides what I suggest is a fairly non-contentious definition of a livestock producer, which is "any person engaged in the business of selling livestock to a meat processing plant for slaughter (including the sale of livestock from a meat processor to another meat processor)". Amendment No. 3 defines a meat processing plant. Again, I suggest this is relatively uncontentious. It means "any plant or premises where there the business of slaughtering livestock, of manufacturing or preparing meats or me…

The use of feedlots is just one of the avenues open to processors to keep down prices. This amendment does not require anybody to do anything but it facilitates the Minister or his successors to introduce legislation requiring very extensive reporting by meat processors on the "type of purchase, including grades, and age, the quantity of cattle purchased on a live weight basis, the quantity of cattle purchased on a dressed, or dead, weight basis, a range of the weights of the cattle purchased, the number of cattle …

In seeking to introduce transparency, the Minister has avoided the elephant in the room, which is the relationship between processors and retailers and the role-----

I did not agree to these amendments being grouped. In fairness, they are slightly disparate amendments that deserve an adequate discussion.

I urge the Minister to accept these amendments, not because he has to implement regulations I have set out here, but because he could introduce regulations if he thought they were necessary or, more importantly,-----